Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 08:40:03

Like it says, continuation from "Post central for information on CEV 2"

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 13:00:50

Out of curiosity, has anyone heard any details about Lockheed making a light heavy lift rocket based on Atlas technology?

RobertDyck · 2005-02-03 16:57:49

Out of curiosity, has anyone heard any details about Lockheed making a light heavy lift rocket based on Atlas technology?

According to the http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findP … 0]Lockheed Martin web site

The Atlas V-Heavy configuration uses three Common Core Booster stages strapped together to provide capability necessary to lift the heaviest payloads.

According to the http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/PA/Fac … elv.htm]US Air Force as of January 2005, the Atlas V-Heavy is available 30 months from order. http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e … html]Space and Tech estimates it can lift 13,605kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit @ 27° inclination, or 8,500kg directly to geosynchronous orbit. http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/n … ernational Launch Services (the guys you actually buy it from) say it "will be capable of delivering more than 13,000kg" to GTO, and 6,500kg directly to GSO. Space and Tech estimates the price at $130 million, but http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm]Encyclopedia Astronautica estimates at $170 million.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/a … .jpg]Click here for picture

As a comparison, the Delta IV-Heavy can lift 25,800kg to 185kg orbit @ 28.5° inclination, or 10,843kg to GTO @ 27° inclination. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dellarge … cyclopedia Astronautica estimates price at $170 million, but the US Air Force recently launched a test flight for $154 million.

::Edit:: I still hate use of the word "Heavy" for these launch vehicles; they're nowhere near the lift capacity of a Saturn V. I prefer the word "Large", but Lockheed Martin and Boeing literature now cosistently uses the word "Heavy".

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 18:00:13

When I say "light heavy lifter" I am not talking about a vehicle to compete with the standard Delta-IV HLV, I am talking about a vehicle that could lift 80,000-100,000kg, big enough to make a direct flight to Lunar orbit with substantial payload. It would not be made by strapping together Atlas-V cores or using bundles of little SRMs.

In theory, Boeing says the Delta-IV HLV could be modified (RS-68 nozzle upgraded, four GEM-60's added, Lithium Alloy tankage, perhaps slushed Hydrogen) could launch 40,000kg. With a rocket like that, you could launch your payload and TLI stage seperatly and move real masses.

Edit: You could also launch the crew CEV with only one Delta-IV+ core and zero SRMs. Earth to LEO with only two engines total.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-03 19:37:12

Sorry, that's all I know. You could also add solid rockets to an Atlas V-Heavy, and convert the CCB to lithium-aluminum. Slush hydrogen only increases Isp by 8 seconds at sea level, so I don't know how much you'ld gain. Atlas V uses LOX/kerosine rather than LOX/LH2 so it isn't a "hard" cryogen. You could get a similar improvement in Isp with Atlas by replacing kerosine with liquid methane (LCH4). That would require developing a new variant of the RD-180 engine, but slush hydrogen would require a new variant of the RS-68.

Euler · 2005-02-03 19:50:42

Slush hydrogen is not supposed to increase the Isp at all, it is supposed to increase the density. You can get a little bit higher Isp with methane than with kerosene, but it also has a significantly lower density. The decrease in density is usually enough to keep methane from being preferred over kerosene.

John Creighton · 2005-02-03 21:56:39

The decrease in density is usually enough to keep methane from being preferred over kerosene.

I would of thought you would want more density for fuels with the same ISP. That way you wouldn’t need as big as structure to get the same amount of push. That could lead to a better mass ratio.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 22:24:53

Modifying the RS-68 (and perhaps the ML-60) to burn slush Hydrogen shouldn't be difficult, since with regenerative cooling around the nozzle heating the fuel and finely grained slush, there shouldn't be much in the way of viscosity or clogging problems. If it is infact what Boeing means by "densified" fuel.

Between two fuels of similar Isp, the denser one is obviously preferable purely from a physics standpoint, but if your Isp is much greater then it can be very worthwhile.

The advantages of Kerosenes' higher density and non-cryogenic character make it ideal for larger first stage engines, but Methane is better for smaller first stage engines since it probobly burns faster and would work better with pressure-fed engines with its lower viscosity and density.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-04 13:36:33

One would hope that some standardization of parts used for what ever configuration of the CEV would be in the process.
That each would not be different and that the partners in the exploration of beyound LEO would also have the same componentary to make use of.

Russia Suggests Spaceship Standardization

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 13:46:35

Maybe the article should instead read "Russia tries to sneak undercutting US Aerospace firms, monopolizing non-military world launch business, and having veto power of the US space program past gullible people."

Oh, and use the same old little Soyuz-sized hatches, the ones that are to small to fit batteries, oxygen generators, gyros, or crew in space suits through. What a great idea!

John Creighton · 2005-02-04 14:06:56

Maybe the article should instead read "Russia tries to sneak undercutting US Aerospace firms, monopolizing non-military world launch business, and having veto power of the US space program past gullible people."

Depends on your perspective doesn’t it. Can the US compete in the international launch market either way?

SpaceNut · 2005-02-04 14:28:11

well one way to know is to see how much the US built rd-180 is, from I think pratt an wittney versus if it where bought direct.

If we can not complete on low price of a like size then lets go for the super size heavy lift and corner the market.

Euler · 2005-02-04 15:12:22

Depends on your perspective doesn’t it. Can the US compete in the international launch market either way?

If the dollar keeps getting weaker, then the US certainly should be able to compete in the international launch market.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 15:39:18

I don't think that it will ever be allowed to slide THAT far, to where Boeing/Lockmart/et al's rockets would be similarly priced to their Russian counterparts. (Soyuz R-7 vs Delta-II or Atlas-II/III... Proton or Zenit or Angara vs Delta-IV or Atlas-V).

Provided that SpaceX doesn't build their Falcon-V or Kistler doesn't arise from the dead with their KH-1.

Otherwise... it is likly that the only non-military market rocket made in America would be the Delta-II, and it would still be a "luxury option" for satelite launch. Even the Delta-II might not be cheap enough versus the R-7 or Angara in large supply.

So, as far as non-military contracts are concernd, NASA is probobly going to be the only other serious rocket buyer in the US big enough to keep both EELV factories in business... if Russia undercut the US firms, then things don't look so good for American rocket builders.

That would also put us in the situation where Russia could veto US space missions, and would require alot of NASA flight operations be moved to Plestek or Baikonour... No way would outsource that kind of operation.

As far as an HLLV, the chances of having a private application in the near term are nill, but could keep the rocket builders in business beyond the occasional USAF satelite.

John Creighton · 2005-02-04 15:57:46

Just because Russian could make a compatible rocket would that necessarily mean NASA would have to buy it? I would think it would just give more backup plans if for some reason the US supply was low. I also think it would help eliminate some of the problems that occurred on the ISS. In the long run standardization should be good. It should bring down overall prices and make it easier for smaller companies to get into the market. Of course non of this matters yet until the launch market gets much bigger.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 16:45:57

Actually yeah, many government agencies are required as a policy to use the lowest bidder in procurement.

Making CEV capsules interchangeable with Russian boosters doesn't make alot of sense either given the differences in diameter, center of gravity, and control computer interfaces would make interchangeability difficult.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 15:21:24

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.htm … m=1]Kliper to fly on Zenit.

5 or 6 to LEO for $50 million give or take? Isn't Zenit the least expensive light/medium booster in the world, right now?

= = =

Maybe an American company can purchase manufacturing rights and win Bigelow's prize.

= = =

http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf]$42.5 million per launch.

Edited By BWhite on 1107897866

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 15:24:09

I would like to know more on what sort of demonstrator capabilities this would give at the showing.

clark · 2005-02-08 15:27:28

Klipper]http://www.photocenter.ru/myphoto/films/eu6gN6F3c8hO3c1TIF9ScQ/LMPLy8MOOoUAABZLBrsAAAAE.html]"Klipper Demonstrator"

The above link is all that they have. It's a mock up.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-08 15:47:23

It won't be quite that cheap Bill, since the Klipper itself is only partially reuseable, and Zenit isn't man-rated nor do facilities exsist for manned launch. I would say the figure is closer to $100M per flight.

And right now, Klipper isn't going anywhere without a serious infusion of cash. The Russian space program is spending just about everything to keep the ISS proped up and workable.

clark · 2005-02-08 15:59:50

Zenit is also a Ukrainian rocket...

The Paris show is an attempt by Russia to drum up some foriegn support for their Kliper ship. They have only budgeted (and have only enough of a budget) for design studies. They've been talking to the Chinese and apparently some Middle Eastern countries (but there are politcal ramifications with those choices).

Timeline for testing though has orbital launches in the 2010-2015 time range.

The going figure is 1 billion (10 bilion rubles) for development

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-02-09 05:13:19

One would hope that some standardization of parts used for what ever configuration of the CEV would be in the process.
That each would not be different and that the partners in the explorationof beyound LEO would also have the same componentary to make use of.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … tml]Russia Suggests Spaceship Standardization

Well I don't really know what Russians are up to, maybe the want more say in space matters and a better foothold in ISS plans ? As for Economics and safety for the NASA shuttle the news is always up and down, NASA budget is 2.4 % up but still faces bad news, about $500 million less than what the agency had been expecting. Many say 'NASA fared better than many federal agencies in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2006 budget request' but NASA also has trimmed its request for Project Constellation, which is intended to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle that can transport astronauts to the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 12:08:57

The reality of the situation is that the Shuttle and the ISS are taking up the money that NASA intends to spend on the CEV and the rest of the VSE program. You can't do both at once. Shuttle is taking up more money to make it flyable again, and so this money has to come from VSE.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-09 12:28:42

A Spiral Stairway to the Moon and Beyond

Replanting boot prints on the Moon. Hurling expeditionary crews to distant and dusty Mars and other destinations. Executing a 21st century outreach campaign to faraway worlds demands a safe, sustainable, and affordable transport vehicle system.
Though the CEV’s main purpose would be to leave Earth orbit, the vehicle is also assigned the duty to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station after the space shuttle is phased out. The CEV or versions of the CEV could operate for extended-duration in Earth orbit, as well as in close proximity to or on the surface of the Moon and Mars.

The first spiral development planned for Constellation Systems is scripted to deliver humans to Earth orbit in a CEV by 2014. The second spiral will dispatch humans to the lunar surface no later than 2020, followed by the third spiral that will enable extended visits to the Moon’s cratered landscape

In 2008, the selected contractors will carry out unpiloted "boilerplate" CEV trial runs. The CEV program calls for a boilerplate type test in 2008, to look at various risk areas.
Congress is sensitive to cost overruns and delays as seen on past large space projects. "So as we move forward, we need to have some discreet victories on cost and schedule…like the 2008 CEV demo. Congress wants to see NASA reduce the schedule and cost risk of the standard prime approach by including a nontraditional company that uses rapid prototyping techniques and lean staffing.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-14 05:46:09

At least IMO the article points out the confusion of the term spiral.

CEV: let’s try and clear this up once and for all

There has been a lot of confusion over the last few weeks on what the actual Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) mission is going to be. Some sources claimed that the CEV was going to be strictly an Earth-to-Moon vehicle and was not being designed to go anywhere near the ISS.

The old what if?

If the CEV turns into another OSP or X-33, it will probably be the end of NASA in its current form.

At some point soon, the Exploration Systems office is going to have to tell the contractors and the public, in plain and simple English, what it wants the CEV to do, and to present a rough schedule for accomplishing those goals.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-02 08:40:03

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#2 2005-02-03 13:00:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#3 2005-02-03 16:57:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#4 2005-02-03 18:00:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#5 2005-02-03 19:37:12

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#6 2005-02-03 19:50:42

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#7 2005-02-03 21:56:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#8 2005-02-03 22:24:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#9 2005-02-04 13:36:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#10 2005-02-04 13:46:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#11 2005-02-04 14:06:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#12 2005-02-04 14:28:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#13 2005-02-04 15:12:22

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#14 2005-02-04 15:39:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#15 2005-02-04 15:57:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#16 2005-02-04 16:45:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#17 2005-02-08 15:21:24

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#18 2005-02-08 15:24:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#19 2005-02-08 15:27:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#20 2005-02-08 15:47:23

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#21 2005-02-08 15:59:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#22 2005-02-09 05:13:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#23 2005-02-09 12:08:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#24 2005-02-09 12:28:42

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#25 2005-02-14 05:46:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Board footer